Then that’s a completely different argument. This discussion is about abortion. If we can remove the embryo and put it in a jar until it becomes a baby, then who takes care of it? Despite what many would have you believe, there isn’t a shortage of babies put up for adoption.
No, it isn't. You've said that a human life is that which can survive outside the mother, even with assistance. And the central point of contention in that discussion is: when does a human life matter? Your definition of human life turns on when the child organism can survive outside the mother. If a 7-month preemie could survive (with assistance) outside the mother, and therefore should be given legal protection, then why wouldn't an embryo that could be raised outside the mother (similarly, with assistance) also qualify? Irrelevant to the discussion. Who takes care of a baby that is naturally born? Who takes care of a preemie that requires months of hospitalization? The answers to any of those questions have no bearing on whether something should be considered a human life or not.
Then how about this - hypotheticals have no place in this discussion. Stop trying to move the goal posts and discuss the issue at hand.
Sure they do. The hypothetical tests your definition. I'm not moving any goalposts. You offered up a definition of human life and I'm testing it. You said that if it can survive outside the mother (even with assistance) then it's a human life. I've asked if I can do that with an embryo, does your definition still hold? If not, why not?
Theoretical - if a 7-day embryo COULD survive outside the mother without assistance, then let it and she doesn't get a say after it's removed. At the moment, it can't and she does. Additional question: is Paladin OK with taxpayer money supporting it once it's out of the womb? Or is he being a hypocritical gobshite like he usually fucking is?
The Bible says that's a waste of God's gift of life. Oh, wait, that's masturbate. But he does fap off over capitalism... There's a portmanteau there somewhere. Which is French. So he hates it because socialism. So he's really hating himself. Self-abuse. IT ALL MAKES SENSE.
Another person having rights does not confer on me the obligation (as an individual, anyway) to sustain that person. You're a person and I'll defend you right to be treated like a person, but I don't owe you anything beyond that.
I have. You want to move the goalposts of reality to fit your argument. I refuse to budge. My definition stands for those of us living in reality.
You have not. You don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means, apparently. You can't answer it, because you know your answer will reveal the flaw in your definition.
In reality, today, 2020, if a fetus can survive outside a woman’s uterus, then it is a baby - outside the uterus. If pulling a child from the mother’s womb, and all CURRENT medical procedures cannot save it, it’s not a baby. Is that clear enough for your dull-witted brain cells?
So if you were Superman, and you saved a kid from a fire, but you knew or a fact the kid's dad would beat him, just hand him right over, eh? "Sorry, Bobby, my obligations are bare minimum!! Da da daaaaa! *Swoosh!*". Boy, that'd make a good movie for Warners. The Rotten Tomatoes score would be great, I'm sure.
Look, you're getting sucked into the wrong argument. Conservatives don't really give a shit about any of this. They get off on sending you down the argument rabbit hole while they giggle behind your back like teenage girl-bullies. It's about power over women, which is but a small piece of their larger sick and twisted philosophy of social hierarchies. That's where they're weak, that's why they have to gaslight, so attack on THAT front.
?!? To the point that machines can substitute a mother’s womb? Can build a human being from a fertilized egg? Sure. We can rethink the discussion at that time. Until then, if a fetus cannot survive outside a mother’s womb, then it’s not a baby.
Recognizable brainwaves are generally taken as a sign of a properly functioning brain. Hence the EEC.
And how do you demonstrate scientifically that that is the definition of humanity? Without a scientific demonstration, you are simply making an unfounded claim, and resorting to circular reasoning.
I would put that differently. The question is not "When does a human life matter?" because that question pre-supposes that we're talking about a human life. Human lives always matter. The real question is: What is a human life? If it can be demonstrated that an embryo or fetus is a human being, without resorting to an unprovable philosophic (or religions) assumption, and without using circular reasoning to do it, then it is clear that any intervention that deliberately kills it is murder. If it can be demonstrated that an embryo or fetus is not a human being, without resorting to an unprovable philosophic assumption, and without using circular reasoning to do it, then it is clear that an abortion is strictly a question of the woman's body, and no one else should have anything to say to her about what she does with her own body. But the real question is: how do you define humanity? If we can't come up with a scientifically verifiable definition of humanity, then abortion will always be a confrontation between philosophies, and neither side can claim to have "science" on its side. That is why I challenge anyone, on either side of the debate, to demonstrate scientifically that their definition of "humanity" is the valid one. I have never seen anyone do it, or even come close.
In mathematics we call this "proof by intimidation". It is not a valid form of argument. You claimed earlier that your beliefs were rooted in science. Where is the science that demonstrates that your definition of humanity is valid?
Didn't I hear someone say, not too long ago, that if you can't make your point without insulting someone, you don't have a point? I might not agree with Paladin on quite a large number of points, but I would never try to "prove" my point by insulting his intelligence. Not only is that simply an ad hominem fallacy, it is also factually wrong: he is in fact a very intelligent man.
